Safe Work Australia
Work-related injuries
and fatalities on
Australian farms
March 2013
Creative Commons
ISBN
978-0-642-78727-9 [PDF]
978-0-642-78728-6 [DOCX]
With the exception of the Safe Work Australia logo and front cover images, this
report is licensed by Safe Work Australia under a Creative Commons 3.0
Australia Licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt the work, as long as
you attribute the work to Safe Work Australia and abide by the other licensing
terms. The report should be attributed as Work-related injuries and fatalities on
Australian farms, March 2013.
Enquiries regarding the licence and any use of the report are welcome at:
Copyright Officer
Stakeholder Engagement
Safe Work Australia
GPO Box 641 Canberra ACT 2601
Email: copyrightrequests@safeworkaustralia.gov.au
Disclaimer
The information provided in this document can only assist you in the most
general way. This document does not replace any statutory requirements under
any relevant State and Territory legislation. Safe Work Australia accepts no
liability arising from the use of or reliance on the material contained on this
document, which is provided on the basis that Safe Work Australia is not thereby
engaged in rendering professional advice. Before relying on the material, users
should carefully make their own assessment as to its accuracy, currency,
completeness and relevance for their purposes, and should obtain any
appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. To the
extent that the material in this document includes views or recommendations of
third parties, such views or recommendations do not necessarily reflect the views
of Safe Work Australia nor do they indicate a commitment to a particular course
of action.
ii
Foreword
From a health and safety point of view, farms are unique. While other industries
share some of the hazards of farming such as plant, chemicals, noise, dust, sun
exposure and working with animals, the combination of hazards found in farming
as well as the context in which farm work is done, make farming one of the most
dangerous industries in which to work.
Agriculture has the highest proportion of self-employed workers of any industry.
Self-employed farmers face the demands and stress of running a business as
well as undertaking the hard physical labour involved in farm work.
Farm workers often work alone. There are fewer opportunities for sharing
practices, observing and learning from others. Farm workers are often at a
distance from help or first aid should an incident occur. If a farmer is injured or
trapped there are often no workmates to assist and to get medical help.
In addition to being places of work, farms are unique in that they are also homes,
often with children.
The Agriculture sector also employs a higher proportion of older workers than
any other industry. While increasing age brings increased experience and skills,
it also brings a diminution in some areas – reflexes are not as quick, physical
strength is lessened, hearing is not as sharp. Jumping on and off a tractor while
it is in gear is a preventable risk at any age but doing so at 60 or more will
increase the likelihood of serious or even fatal consequences.
This report draws together a profile of Australian farmers and documents
important trends in fatalities and injuries that occur on Australian farms. At the
end of this report are potential avenues for improving the work health and safety
of Australian farmers and farm workers in the context of the Australian Work
Health and Safety Strategy 2012–2022.
iii
Contents
Foreword
............................................................................................. iii
Summary of findings ................................................................................. vii
A profile of workers on farms .................................................................. 1
Employment in the Agriculture sector ........................................................... 1
Employment by farm type ........................................................................... 1
Employment by age group.......................................................................... 2
Employment by state/territory .................................................................... 3
Employment in the Agriculture and fishing support services sector........... 4
Worker fatalities ........................................................................................ 5
Farm deaths by age ......................................................................................... 6
Common causes of farm deaths ..................................................................... 7
Deaths from working with vehicles ................................................................ 9
Deaths from working with tractors............................................................. 9
Deaths from working with aircraft ............................................................ 12
Deaths involving light vehicles ................................................................ 13
Deaths involving quad bikes .................................................................... 13
Deaths not involving vehicles ....................................................................... 15
Deaths by state/territory ................................................................................ 16
Bystander fatalities on farms ................................................................... 19
Work-related injuries ................................................................................. 21
Workers’ compensation claims by sex ........................................................ 21
Time lost from work ....................................................................................... 22
How injuries occurred ................................................................................... 22
Object or substance inflicting injury ............................................................ 25
Part of body most affected ............................................................................ 25
Workers’ compensation claims by sector .................................................... 27
Workers’ compensation claims by age group ............................................. 28
Serious claims by state/territory ................................................................... 29
Hospitalisations due to work-related injury ........................................... 31
Causes of hospitalisation .............................................................................. 31
Age profile of hospitalised workers.............................................................. 33
Type of injury resulting in hospitalisation ................................................... 34
Bodily location of injury that resulted in hospitalisation ............................ 35
The way forward ........................................................................................ 37
Explanatory Notes ..................................................................................... 39
Glossary
............................................................................................. 43
iv
Summary of findings
The Agriculture sector employed 306 700 workers in 2010–11 with 46% of them
self-employed. Over half of Agriculture workers were employed farming sheep,
beef cattle or grain.
This report uses a range of data sources to provide a profile of the types and
frequency of work-related injuries and fatalities that incurred on Australian farms.
These data indicate that while males accounted for 67% of workers, they
accounted for 92% of the fatalities, 85% of the hospitalisations and 77% of the
workers’ compensation claims in the Agriculture sector.
All sources point to the dangers involved with farm equipment and machinery as
well as working with animals. The fatalities and hospitalisations data show the
much higher risk of serious injury to older farm workers. These workers are
mostly self-employed and are not covered by workers’ compensation.
Nevertheless, the workers’ compensation data provides a more detailed look into
the types of farms where employees have incurred injuries.
Work-related fatalities
Over the eight years from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2011, 356 workers died while
working on a farming property. This is 17% of all worker fatalities. Nearly onethird of the worker fatalities on farms were workers aged 65 years or over.
Incidents involving vehicles accounted for 71% of fatalities on farms. Tractors
were involved in 93 (26%) farm deaths, aircraft were involved in 48 (13%), light
vehicles were involved in 28 (8%) and quad bikes were involved in 27 (8%). Of
the incidents that did not involve a vehicle the most common involved being hit or
bitten by an animal (18) and falling from a horse (11). There were also 9 fatal
shootings while workers were attempting to remove vermin from around
properties or destroying farm animals.
Work-related injuries
A survey of Agriculture workers in 2009–10 found 17 400 had incurred a workrelated injury or illness in the previous 12 months. This equates to 56.4 injuries
per 1000 workers which is slightly lower than the all industries rate of 57.9.
Employees (non-self-employed) in the Agriculture sector are eligible for workers’
compensation when injured at work. In 2009–10, 4660 claims for compensation
from this sector were accepted around Australia, 39% of these involved less than
one week off work.
One-quarter of claims involved Body stressing which includes musculoskeletal
stress due to handling or lifting objects. Of these claims 29% were due to
handling non-powered tools and equipment, 15% from working with animals and
11% working with mobile plant and transport.
Being hit by an animal accounted for 9% of claims and Being hit by moving
objects other than an animal accounting for 18% of claims.
Falls accounted for 21% of claims. These claims were mainly due to hazardous
ground surfaces (41%) and 18% were due to falls from mobile plant and
transport.
Within the Agriculture sector, the highest incidence rate of injury was recorded by
Other livestock farming (102.5 claims per 1000 employees). This was nearly
three times the rate for the whole of the Agriculture sector (35.5). The Other
v
livestock farming sector accounted for 4% of Agriculture employees and includes
the farming of animals such as pigs, horses, dogs, cats and goats. The Poultry
farming sector recorded the lowest incidence rate of 20 claims per 1000
employees
Young workers, those aged less than 25 years, recorded the highest rate of
compensated injury with 52 claims per 1000 employees. Injury rates decreased
with age down to 13.2 claims per 1000 employees for those aged 65 years or
older. However, workers in this oldest age group who are eligible for workers’
compensation account for just 3% of all Agriculture workers and just 6% of
employees in the Agriculture sector. Therefore the rates of injury for older
workers may be understated.
Overall 22% of claims were due to working with animals, 19% from working with
mobile plant and transport and 18% from working with non-powered tools and
equipment.
Work-related hospitalisations
Approximately 4400 workers on farms were hospitalised for a work-related injury
in the three-year period from July 2006 to June 2009. This is 6% of all workers
who were hospitalised.
The most common reasons for being hospitalised were Contact with agricultural
machinery, Motorcycle transport accident or Bitten or struck by cattle each
accounting for 9% of farm hospitalisations. Since males accounted for 85% of
the farm hospitalisations, the pattern for males was similar. However, females
showed a different pattern. Over the three-year period from July 2006 to June
2009, 13% of farm hospitalisations involved females who had been injured in a
horse-related incident with a further 6% having been Bitten or struck by horse
and 10% Bitten or struck by cattle.
Workers aged 65 years and over accounted for 12% of farm hospitalisations.
This proportion is four times the proportion this age group represents of
hospitalisations across all places of work (3%).
Young workers had more hospitalisations for a motorbike or horse-related
incident or from coming into contact with a sharp object such as a knife while
older workers had more hospitalisations from contact with machinery.
One-third (33%) of farm hospitalisations involved Fractures. This was slightly
higher than the proportion Fractures comprised of all work-related
hospitalisations (27%). The proportion that Fractures represented of all farm
hospitalisations increased with age from 28% of hospitalisations of farm workers
in the 15–24 years age group to 37% of those in the 65 years and over age
group.
vi
A profile of workers on farms
Workers on farms in Australia are mostly employed in the Agriculture sector. In
addition a small number of workers come from the Agriculture and fishing
support services sector and from other industries such as Manufacturing and
Transport to work periodically on farms in assisting with fertilising, spraying,
mustering or just making general deliveries to the working property.
Unfortunately Safe Work Australia does not have data on the number of workers
on farms whose usual employment is in an industry outside of the Agriculture,
forestry & fishing industry. Therefore this section will only provide a profile of
workers in the Agriculture and Agriculture & fishing support services sectors.
Employment in the Agriculture sector
In 2010–11 there were 306 700 people working in the Agriculture sector, 2.8% of
the national workforce. Two-thirds (67%) of the workers were male. While there
has been little change in the total number of workers in this sector since 2004–
05, Figure 1 shows that the proportion of workers who are self-employed has
fallen from 50% in 2005–06 to 46% in 2010–11 with a corresponding increase in
the number of people working for someone else (employees).
Figure 1: Agriculture: number of workers by employment status,
2004–05 to 2010–11
Number of employed workers
200
175
Employees
150
Self-employed
125
100
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
Year
Employment by farm type
Labour Force Survey (LFS) data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
for 2010–11 shows that half (53%) of all workers in the Agriculture sector worked
in Sheep, beef cattle and grain farming. Table 1 shows that within this sector
most were self-employed: 32% of all Agriculture workers were self-employed
Sheep, beef cattle & grain farmers compared with 21% who were employees.
In addition there were 20 900 people working in the Agriculture & fishing support
services sector of which 37% were self-employed. These people were working
as aerial crop dusters, musterers, fruit pickers and hay balers. Employment in
this sector has fallen 8% in the past five years.
1
Table 1: Agriculture: proportion of workers by industry group and
employment status, 2010–11
Proportion of workers
Employee
SelfTotal
employed
Agriculture sector
Sheep, beef cattle & grain farming
Fruit & tree nut growing
Dairy cattle farming
Nursery & floriculture production
Mushroom & vegetable growing
Other livestock farming
Poultry farming
Other crop growing
Total Agriculture
21%
32%
52%
9%
3%
12%
6%
5%
11%
4%
1%
6%
5%
1%
6%
3%
2%
5%
3%
1%
4%
2%
2%
4%
54%
46%
100%
There is some state/territory variation in the type of agriculture being undertaken.
This is to be expected considering the different climates and environments in
these regions. For instance, 62% of Agriculture workers in New South Wales
were employed in the Sheep, beef cattle & grain farming sector. These workers
account for 32% of all in the Sheep, beef cattle & grain farming workers. New
South Wales also accounted for 55% of the employment in the Poultry farming
sector in 2010–11.
Agriculture workers in Victoria accounted for 67% of employment in the Dairy cattle
farming sector while Agriculture workers in Queensland accounted for 85% of the
employment in the Other crop growing sector due to the sugar cane industry.
Employment by age group
Figure 2 shows the profile of workers in the Agriculture sector by age group and
employment status for 2010–11. These data show the proportion of workers in
each age group increased up to 54 years where it began to decline. However the
proportion of workers aged 65 years and over remained higher than the
proportion of workers in the 25–34 years age group. Workers in this oldest age
group accounted for 16% of Agriculture workers and nearly all of them were selfemployed workers. In contrast workers under the age of 25 years were
predominantly employees.
Figure 2: Agriculture: proportion of workers by employment status and
age group, 2010–11
Proportion of workers
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Self-employed
Employees
Under 25
1%
25–34
3%
35–44
7%
45–54
11%
55–64
11%
65+
13%
8%
10%
11%
11%
9%
3%
Age group (years)
2
Figure 3 shows the change in the number of workers from 2004–05 to 2010–11
by age group. These data show that there has been a rise in the number of
Agriculture workers aged 65 years and over but falls in most of the younger age
groups. This pattern indicates an aging workforce in the Agriculture sector.
Change in number of workers ('000)
Figure 3: Agriculture: change in the number of workers between
2004–05 and 2010–11 by age group
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Under 25
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
65+
Age group (years)
Employment by state/territory
Figure 4 shows that employment in Agriculture follows the same pattern by
state/territory as the general population with New South Wales accounting for the
highest proportion of workers (29%) and the Northern Territory the lowest (1%).
In New South Wales and Victoria self-employed workers made up half of the
Agriculture workforce in 2010–11 while in all other regions the proportion of
workers that were Employees was larger than the proportion that were Selfemployed. Queensland and Tasmania had the highest proportions working as
Employees (60% and 63% respectively compared with 54% nationally).
Figure 4: Agriculture: proportion of workers by employment status and
state/territory, 2010–11
Percentage of workers
30%
25%
Self-employed
20%
Employee
15%
10%
5%
0%
Self-employed
NSW
14%
Vic
12%
Qld
9%
WA
5%
SA
4%
Tas
1%
NT
0%
Employee
15%
12%
13%
7%
5%
2%
1%
State/territory of work
3
Employment in the Agriculture & fishing support services sector
There are a number of other workers who come onto agriculture properties from
time to time to assist with specialised activities. The main group of workers are
those in the Agriculture & fishing support services sector which employed 20 900
workers in 2010–11. This is approximately 7% of the size of the Agriculture
sector. The Agriculture & fishing support services sector includes workers
involved in cotton ginning, shearing, aerial spraying and mustering, fertilising and
fruit picking. Not all of these activities require the worker to work on a farming
property. However no information is available which would allow the estimation
of the proportion of workers who undertake work on farms.
The Agriculture & fishing support services sector has a lower proportion of selfemployed workers than the Agriculture sector. In 2010–11, one-third of workers
in this sector were self-employed compared with nearly half in the Agriculture
sector.
Figure 5 shows Queensland and New South Wales were the states with the
highest proportion of workers in this sector accounting for 28% and 27%
respectively. These data should be used with caution due to high relative
standard errors associated with the LFS data. No reliable information by age
group can be obtained.
Figure 5: Agriculture & fishing support services: proportion of workers by
state/territory, 2010–11
Percentage of workers
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2010-11
Qld
28%
NSW
27%
Vic
19%
SA
11%
WA
10%
State/territory of work
4
Tas
3%
NT
1%
Worker fatalities
Over the eight years from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2011, 480 workers employed in
the Agriculture, forestry & fishing industry were killed while working. This
represented 22% of all workers killed in Australia during that time period.
The Agriculture sector alone accounted for 350 of the worker fatalities: 73% of all
worker fatalities in the Agriculture, forestry & fishing industry and 16% of worker
fatalities across all industries.
Table 2 shows a breakdown of the number of fatalities within the Agriculture,
forestry & fishing industry and the associated fatality rates. In 2010–11 the
Agriculture sector recorded a fatality rate of 15.33 deaths per 100 000 workers
which is more than eight times the rate across all industries (1.93 deaths per 100
000 workers).
This is not the highest rate within the Agriculture, forestry & fishing industry. The
Agriculture, forestry & fishing support services sector recorded a rate of 28.71
deaths per 100 000 workers and the combined sectors of forestry and fishing
recording a rate of 29.45 deaths per 100 000 workers. Deaths in these two
sectors accounted for around one-quarter of deaths in the industry over the eight
years shown.
Table 2: Worker fatalities: Number and fatality rate for the Agriculture,
forestry & fishing industry, 2003–04 to 2010–11
2
Industry of employer
2
2
2
2
2
2
2003–04 2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
343
–7
0
415
0
0
0 fatalities
0
Number
of work-related
444
–7
0
57
534
–6
0
67
643
–4
0
710
739
–12
0
819
0
836
–5
0
91
0
948
–7
1
06
58
47
57
70
42
62
Agriculture
Agriculture, forestry & fishing
support services
Forestry & fishing*
Total Agriculture, forestry &
fishing
63
79
65
Agriculture
Agriculture, forestry & fishing
support services
Forestry & fishing*
Total Agriculture, forestry &
fishing
19.90
14.01
14.64
11.10
14.29
12.28
11.08
15.33
18.58
27.28
27.41
23.99
13.91
52.96
21.07
28.71
47.12
61.28
31.66
36.53
43.82
108.98
4.84
29.45
21.54
18.20
16.66
13.41
16.17
19.57
11.38
17.36
5
11
Fatality rate (fatalities per 100 000 workers)
*Includes Aquaculture, Forestry & logging and Fishing, hunting & trapping
The data in Table 2 above shows the number of fatalities by the industry in which
the deceased worker was employed. In the case of Agriculture workers, some
fatalities did not occur on the working property. The details in the fatalities
database (See Explanatory Notes) allows for the identification of deaths which
occurred on farms. This database shows that over the eight years from 1 July
2003 to 30 June 2011, 356 workers died while working on a farming property.
This is 17% of all worker fatalities or expressed differently, one in six workers
killed over the past eight years was working on a farm at the time of the incident.
Table 3 shows that of the workers who died while working on a farm, 81% (289)
were employed in the Agriculture sector. The Agriculture workers who died while
away from the farming property were mostly killed in a work-related vehicle
incident on a public road.
5
2
0
1
0
–
1
1
Table 3 shows that 10% (36) of the workers who were killed on farms were
employed in the Agriculture & fishing support services sector. This sector
accounted for 11% of fatalities in the Agriculture, forestry & fishing industry. Over
the eight years from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2011, 53 workers in this sector have
been killed with 36 (64%) dying in an incident on a farm. These workers were
mainly engaged in aerial spraying and mustering.
The remaining 9% (31) of farm deaths involved workers who were employed in
other industries but were working on the property at the time of the incident that
caused their death. Of these 9 had come to the property to deliver farming
equipment or materials or to pick them up, 5 were assisting with spraying
operations, 4 had come to the property to repair equipment and 4 were
undertaking gardening activities such as mowing and tree lopping.
Table 3: Worker fatalities: Number by location (farm or non-farm), 2003–
04 to 2010–11
Number of work-related fatalities
2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 TOTAL
60
46
46
31
47
38
37
51
356
54
35
36
25
39
27
31
42
289
4
4
5
2
3
7
5
6
36
2
7
5
4
5
4
1
3
31
210
208
244
269
245
251
183
169
1779
Agriculture
9
8
8
9
4
12
5
6
61
Agriculture &
fishing support
services
1
3
2
4
1
5
0
1
17
200
197
234
256
240
234
178
162
1701
270
254
290
300
292
289
220
220
2135
Farm
Agriculture
Agriculture &
fishing support
services
Other industries
Non-farm
Other industries
Total fatalities
It is not possible to calculate farm fatality rates accurately as it is not known how
many workers who are not employed within the Agriculture sector work on
farming properties at any particular time. The data in Table 3 shows that 83% of
the Agriculture fatalities and 68% of the Agriculture & fishing support services
fatalities occurred on a farm. For all other sectors 2% of fatalities occurred on a
farm.
Farm deaths by age
The following analysis profiles the 356 fatalities that occurred on farms in the
eight years to 2010–11. Males accounted for 92% of the fatalities (328) and there
were 28 (8%) female workers killed.
Figure 6 shows an increasing proportion of worker fatalities with age. Workers
aged 65 years and over accounted for 30% of all fatalities on farms in the eight
years. This is nearly three times the proportion this age group represents of all
worker fatalities.
For the 55–64 years age group similar proportions were recorded for those
working on farms and for all workers, while for all younger age groups the
proportion of deaths occurring on farms was lower than for all workers. These
data show that there is a greater risk of death for older workers on farms than for
the wider working population.
6
Figure 6 Worker fatalities on farms: Proportion by age group, 2003–04 to
2010–11 combined
35%
Proportion of fatalities
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Farm workers
All workers
Under
25
8%
10%
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
11%
15%
16%
19%
65 &
over
30%
17%
21%
22%
19%
11%
Age group (years)
While it is not possible to calculate fatality rates for all farm workers Figure 7
shows the rates for Agriculture workers who died due to an incident on a farm.
These data show that Agriculture workers aged 65 years and over had nearly
twice the fatality rate of workers under 25 years of age and more than four times
the rate for workers in the middle age groups.
Fatalities per 100 000 workers
Figure 7 Fatalities on farms involving Agriculture workers: Fatality rate by
age group, 2008–09 to 2010–11 combined
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fatality rate
Under 25
15.79
25-34
14.03
35-44
7.20
45-54
8.16
55-64
11.56
65 & over
25.87
Age group (years)
Common causes of farm deaths
Workers on farms are killed in a variety of ways. Table 4 shows that Vehicle
incident accounted for 43% of deaths on farm. A Vehicle incident includes any
type of vehicle traveling around the farming property or in the air above the
property in which the occupant of that vehicle is killed.
The non-Agriculture sectors recorded much higher proportions of Vehicle
incident than the Agriculture sector as many workers coming onto farming
properties do so in vehicles to assist with mustering or aerial spraying. In the
Agriculture & fishing support services sector 72% of the fatalities involved a
Vehicle incident with 22 of the 26 workers killed in crashes involving air craft.
Of the workers who were employed in other sectors, 52% of fatalities involved a
Vehicle incident with 7 involving aircraft, 3 involving a tractor and 3 involving a
truck.
7
Table 4: Worker fatalities: Number by farm sector, 2003–04 to 2010–11
combined
Workers in Workers from Workers
Agriculture A&F support from Other
services
sectors
Mechanism
Total
Percentage
of total
112
26
16
154
43%
Hit by moving object
49
0
3
52
15%
Trapped by machinery or equipment
32
2
5
39
11%
Hit by falling objects
23
1
3
27
8%
Falls
20
5
2
27
8%
Hit or bitten by animal
17
1
0
18
5%
Contact with electricity
16
0
1
17
5%
Other mechanism
20
1
1
22
6%
289
36
31
356
100%
Vehicle incident
Total
Many farm workers were killed after being Hit by moving object. Of the 52
fatalities due to this cause, 34 (65%) involved vehicles with tractors being the
most common. Tractors were also involved in many of the deaths resulting from
Trapped by machinery or equipment. It is clear therefore that vehicles are
implicated in the vast majority of fatalities on farms. This will be explored in more
detail in the next section.
Figure 8 shows the ways workers have been killed by age group. These data
show that the proportion of workers killed decreased with age for Vehicle incident
deaths from 49% of deaths in workers aged Under 35 to 37% of deaths of
workers aged 65 years and over. The proportion who were Hit by moving object
(which mainly involve vehicles) increased from 13% to 18% with age. These data
also indicate that the proportion of workers who died after being Trapped by
machinery or equipment was similar across the age groups but that those aged 55
and over had a greater proportion of deaths due to Falls.
Figure 8 Worker fatalities on farms: Proportion by mechanism of incident
and age group, 2003–04 to 2010–11 combined
50%
Proportion of fatalities
Under 35 years
40%
35–55 years
30%
65 years & over
55–64 years
20%
10%
0%
Vehicle incident
Hit by moving
object
Trapped by
machinery or
equipment
Falls
Mechanism of incident
8
Hit by falling
object
Other
mechanisms
Deaths from working with vehicles
Vehicles were involved in 71% (251 fatalities out of 356) of the incidents on
farms. Figure 9 shows that over the eight years 93 workers (26% of farm deaths)
died in incidents involving a tractor, 48 (13%) in aircraft incidents, 28 in incidents
involving a light vehicle such as a car or utility and 27 (8%) in incidents with quad
bikes. While 86% of incidents involved only one vehicle, some incidents involved
two or more vehicles. Each vehicle is counted separately in the following
analysis.
Figure 9 Worker fatalities involving vehicles on farms: Number by type of
vehicle involved, 2003–04 to 2010–11 combined
Number of fatalities
100
80
60
40
20
0
Tractor
Aircraft
Light Quad bike
vehicle
Trucks
Motorbike
Earth
Other
moving agriculture
equip.
equip.
Type of vehicle involved
Deaths from working with tractors
The 93 tractor-related fatalities equates to 11 workers being killed each year
while working with or around a tractor. While this is a considerable fall on the
average of 25 deaths per year found in a study undertaken over the 1989–92
period1 similar types of incidents are still claiming lives.
Figure 10 shows that the number of tractor-related fatalities increased with
worker age. Workers aged 65 years and over accounted for 43% of the tractorrelated deaths which is considerably higher than the 29% this age group
represents of all farm deaths.
1
Work-related fatalities involving tractors in Australia 1989 to 1992
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/AboutSafeWorkAustralia/Whatwedo/Publications/Pages/ACSR200007Fatalities
InvolvingTractors.aspx
9
Number of tractor-related fatalities
Figure 10 Worker fatalities involving tractors on farms: Number by age
group, 2003–04 to 2010–11 combined
40
30
20
10
0
Under 25
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 & over
Age group (years)
Figure 11 shows that just over one third (37%) of tractor-related incidents
involved a rollover and one quarter involved the worker being hit by their own
tractor. There were also 14 tractor-related incidents that involved the worker
being trapped or crushed by a tractor. Each of these types of tractor incidents will
be discussed in more detail below.
Number of tractor-related fatalities
Figure 11 Worker fatalities involving tractors on farms: Number by type of
incident, 2003–04 to 2010–11 combined
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Rollover
Hit by own
vehicle
Trapped/
crushed by
tractor
Crashes
involving
tractors
Hit by tractor Hit by falling Electrocution
object
Other
Type of tractor incident
Rollovers
For thirty years it has been mandatory for all newly manufactured tractors to be
fitted with a Rollover Protection Structure (ROPS). While rebates were offered to
retrofit ROPS to existing tractors, many older tractors are still in use without
ROPS. This significantly increases the likelihood of being crushed by the tractor
in the event of a rollover. A previous study undertaken by Safe Work Australia2
concluded that around 4 tractor deaths could be prevented each year by the
installation of ROPS.
2
Fatalities due to working with tractors, Australia 2003–04 to 2006–07
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/SWA/AboutSafeWorkAustralia/WhatWeDo/Publications/Pages/FatalitiesDuetoWorkin
gwithTractors2003-04to2006-07.aspx
10
Workers aged 65 years and over accounted for 50% of the rollover fatalities (17
of 34 rollover deaths). There was only 1 incident where a worker under 35 years
of age was killed in a tractor rollover.
Typical tractor rollover cases include:
An 83 year old worker was slashing grass with a 40 year old tractor
when he went too close to the embankment and rolled into a dry
creek bed. His son had purchased ROPS but it had not been fitted.
A 75 year old worker was killed when his tractor rolled over while
traveling up a steep incline.
A 69 year old worker was killed when his tractor rolled down an
embankment. ROPS had been temporarily removed to fit mud
guards.
A 62 year old worker was killed while pulling out trees. A chain
attached to the rear of the tractor was wrapped around the tree and
as the tractor was driven forward it lifted at the front and flipped
backwards crushing and trapping him underneath. The tractor was
equipped with neither a roll bar nor safety cage.
Being hit by tractor
Over the eight year period considered in this report 23 workers have been killed
after being hit by their own tractor. This equates to around 4 deaths per year. In
52% of the cases the worker was aged 65 or older. In many instances the tractor
was not braked properly while the worked jumped off to open a gate or move a
hay bale and they were unable to regain access to the tractor while it was
moving. The previous tractor study concluded that if tractors were fitted with a
Safe Tractor Access Platform (STAP), 2 deaths from this cause could be
prevented each year.
Typical cases where workers are killed after being hit by their own tractor
include:
An 86 year old worker was run over by his tractor when he tried to
jump back onto it when it started to roll away.
It appears that due to a battery fault, the deceased used another
battery to jump start the tractor. Investigations show the tractor was in
gear and started when jumper leads were applied running over victim
who was then pinned against a tree by the wheel of the attached
spray unit.
The deceased worker was found trapped under the rear tractor
wheel. He had been plowing a field and appears to have put the
tractor in idle and put on the handbrake and then alighted. The tractor
was on an incline and it has moved running over the deceased.
The worker was using a tractor to move a hay bale to a feed lot for
cows. He disembarked the tractor to cut bindings and the tractor
rolled forward and pinned him up against fence post.
Three other workers were hit and killed by tractors they were not driving. Of
these two were hit by reversing tractors and the third happened as follows:
A tractor was coming up a roadway with a bag of pallets on the forklift
tine attachment on the front of the tractor and the tractor ran into the
deceased.
11
There were also 2 workers who were riding on attachments that were being
towed by a tractor when a fatal incident occurred. In one case:
A 38 year old worker was riding on hay bale trailer that was fully
loaded with hay and being towed up a hill by a tractor. The draw bar
connecting the trailer to the tractor snapped and the trailer rolled back
down the hill. The worker has either jumped off or fallen off the back
of the trailer and been crushed under the back wheels of the trailer.
Trapped or crushed by tractor
Of the 14 workers who were trapped or crushed by a tractor, 8 were undertaking
repairs to the vehicle at the time and 6 occurred while loading or unloading the
tractor.
Descriptions of some of the cases include:
A 28 year old worker was refilling a tank attached to a tractor for
spraying purposes when he has slipped onto the unguarded power
take off drive (PTO). His clothes have caught in the PTO and dragged
him into the machine
A farmer was standing on the back of a twin fork attachment to his
tractor when he has reached into cabin of the tractor to change gears
and was crushed between the tractor and the attachment.
On a tractor when the engine is switched off, the slasher’s hydraulics
gradually loose pressure so that the slasher is gradually lowered to
the ground. In this instance a 41 year old worker placed himself under
a slasher to undertake repairs but did not insert any pins or chocks to
keep it in a raised position. He was crushed when the slasher lowered
onto him.
Other tractor incidents
There were a further 17 workers killed in incidents involving tractors. Three of
these involved electrocutions, including 2 where the tractor was used to move a
windmill and came into contact with overhead power lines. There were 4 deaths
due to being Hit by falling object while using a tractor, including 2 who were hit
by falling trees. There were 5 crashes other than rollovers that resulted in fatal
injuries including 3 where the tractor hit a tree and 1 where the tractor ran into a
train that was on tracks that went through the property.
Deaths from working with aircraft
The 48 deaths in aircraft crashes on farms represent 38% of all work-related
fatalities that were the result of aircraft crashes in Australia during this period. Of
these 38 were pilots, 12 were passengers and 1 was a worker undertaking
maintenance on the aircraft at the time of the incident. The majority (60%) of the
deceased workers were aged between 25 and 45 years.
Figure 12 shows that in 18 of the incidents the worker was involved in mustering
operations, in 17 the worker was crop dusting and in a further 9 incidents
workers were undertaking general checking of the property.
12
Number of aircraft-related deaths
Figure 12 Worker fatalities involving aircraft on farms: number by activity
at time of incident, 2003–04 to 2010–11 combined
20
15
10
5
0
Mustering
Crop dusting
Checking
property
Flight training
Other activity
Activity at time of aircraft incident
Planes were involved in 25 of the incidents and the other 23 involved helicopters
or other light aircraft.
In 10 of the incidents, the aircraft hit power lines while in a further 6 the aircraft
hit trees. Five workers were killed when two aircraft collided.
Deaths involving light vehicles
In the eight year period considered in this report, 28 workers died in incidents
involving light vehicles such as cars, utes and motorbikes. In 10 cases the
deceased was in the light vehicle when a crash occurred. In 4 other cases the
worker was on a motorbike when hit by a light vehicle. Two workers were
traveling on the back of a utility and fell off due to rough terrain. Other incidents
involved being crushed by the vehicle while undertaking repairs or while
temporarily out of the vehicle, such as while opening a gate.
Some cases that involved a light vehicle include:
A 62 year old farmer was mustering sheep on her farm property. As she
was driving her utility along a ridge the left front wheel has struck a tree
stump causing the vehicle to roll a number of times down an
embankment.
A 68 year old farmer was crushed by a grader that went into gear while
he was using the blade to lift his ute to change a tyre.
Deaths involving quad bikes
In the eight years considered in this report, 27 workers died in incidents involving
quad bikes. The following analysis does not include the 5 workers who were
killed while using an All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV).
In 20 of the 27 quad bike incidents the worker died due to the quad bike rolling
over and pinning them underneath. In the other 7 incidents the worker was
thrown from the quad bike while traveling over uneven ground. The ground
surface was identified as the major hazard in many of the deaths, with 7 of the
rollovers occurring while traveling up or down an embankment, 5 occurring while
traveling through a watercourse or irrigation channel and 4 hit a ditch. There
were 3 cases where the quad bike hit a fence and 2 where it hit a mound.
13
Figure 13 Worker fatalities involving quad bikes on farms: number by
object involved, 2003–04 to 2010–11 combined
Number of quad bike deaths
8
6
4
2
0
Embankment Water course/
channel
Hit ditch
Hit fence
Hit mound
Other and
unknown
Type of quad bike incident
It is clear in 13 of the incidents that the worker was mustering or moving animals
between paddocks and in a further 4 the worker was spraying weeds. The
remaining 10 cases involved general travel around the property.
Typical quad bike fatality cases include:
The deceased was spraying weeds along a track that was measured to
be approximately 2.9m wide at its widest point. It appears that the
deceased was reversing his quad bike and has attempted a multi-point
turn and during this process the front wheels were resting on the loose
graveled edge. Whilst on the edge the deceased has lost control, and
the quad bike has traveled down the embankment, where the bike came
to rest partially pinning the deceased underneath it.
It appears that she was riding the bike spraying weeds when the right
side wheels left the ground and the bike proceeded down the hill.
Further down the hill the terrain got rougher and it appears that the bike
then rolled over and trapped her.
Whilst driving a quad bike performing mustering, the deceased
contacted a barbed wire fence at speed and was thrown 7m. The
deceased was not wearing a helmet and suffered severe head injuries.
Figure 14 shows that deaths associated with quad bikes involved mainly older
workers, with 44% of the fatalities occurring to workers aged 65 years and over.
Within this age group 10 of the 12 (83%) fatalities were due to the quad bike
rolling over and trapping the worker. Workers aged 55–64 years recorded 7
deaths due to quad bike use with 5 involving a rollover (71%). Interestingly, there
have been no workers between the ages of 25 and 44 killed while riding a quad
bike in the eight years of the series.
Of the 27 quad bike fatalities on farms, 6 involved female workers, 5 of them due
to a rollover. This means that quad bikes were involved in one in five fatalities of
female workers on farms.
14
Number of quad bike fatalities
Figure 14 Worker fatalities involving quad bikes on farms: Number by age
group and sex, 2003–04 to 2010–11 combined
12
Male
Female
9
6
3
0
Less than 25
25–34
35–44
45–54
65 & over
55–64
Age group (years)
Deaths not involving vehicles
There were 105 work-related fatalities on farms that did not involve a vehicle.
Figure 15 shows the most common cause of death was being Bitten or hit by an
animal with 11 of the 18 fatalities in this category involving cows. Some
examples include:
The deceased went to feed cattle and when she has thrown the feed into
the trough the cattle have come running up. One cow was heavily in calf
and was particularly aggressive at feed times. This cow has knocked the
deceased to the ground and trampled her.
The deceased was loading cattle from a yard into a cattle loading ramp.
As a steer was going up the ramp it has fallen. The deceased has run
forward slightly to attempt to shut the gate. Almost simultaneously the
steer has hit the gate pushing it backwards into the deceased’s chest. It
is believed that the steer has then jumped on the deceased as he lay
prone on the ground.
Figure 15 Worker fatalities not involving vehicles on farms: Number by
how incident occurred, 2003–04 to 2010–11 combined
Bitten or hit by animal
Electrocution
Falls from horse
Other fall
Hit by moving object
Accidental shooting
Hit by falling object other than trees
Hit by falling tree
Caught in machinery
Bee sting
Caught in fire
Drowning
Other and unknown
0
5
10
15
Number of non-vehicle fatalities
15
20
Another common cause of death on farms was Fall from horse with 11 fatalities
in the eight years of the study. Of these, 5 occurred while mustering and 2 while
training horses.
There were also 11 deaths due to Electrocution with 7 of the deaths due to
contacting overhead power lines. Three of the deaths occurred while using boom
spray equipment and another 3 while installing irrigation pipes. The following
cases are typical of deaths due to electrocution:
The deceased was transferring chemicals from a vehicle to a selfpropelled boom spray unit when one of the booms made contact with an
overhead power line resulting in his electrocution.
The deceased has picked up a length of irrigation piping approximately
7m in length and moved it into an upright position to clear debris from
inside it. This resulted in the pipe contacting with high voltage power
lines and he was electrocuted.
Falls other than from horses claimed 10 lives. Six of these workers were aged 65
years or older. While 2 of the fatalities involved falls from silos, the others were
all different locations including falls from an elevated work platform, a ladder, a
tree and a house.
The attempt to remove vermin from around properties or the need to destroy
farm animals resulted in 9 shootings. Some cases include:
The deceased removed his rifle from his cupboard and loaded one bullet
into the single shot rifle and then got onto his motor bike and somehow
in the process of getting onto his bike or starting his bike the firearm has
discharged with the projectile striking him under his chin resulting in a
fatal injury.
The deceased and his son were spotlighting for vermin at his farm when
his four-wheel-drive vehicle hit a bump and a shotgun held by son in the
back of the ute fired.
The deceased was assigned to shoot a rogue bull. The deceased left the
area on the quad bike with a 243 bolt action rifle sitting across his thighs.
It is believed the deceased has hit a log, causing the quad bike to flip
and land on his legs. During the incident it appears the firearm
discharged with the projectile striking the deceased in the face causing
death.
Being hit by falling trees claimed 6 lives while a further 7 workers were killed
when hit by other falling objects, 2 of which were collapsing silos.
Deaths by state/territory
Just over half (54%) of the work-related deaths that occurred on farms occurred
in New South Wales and Queensland. This is slightly higher than the proportion
of Agricultural workers these states employ (51%) and about the same
proportion of Agriculture and fishing support services sector workers (55%). This
suggests that if the number of workers on farms could be derived then these
states would record a fatality rate similar to the national rate.
Table 5 shows that the patterns of fatalities by mechanism of injury were broadly
similar across the states. New South Wales recorded one of the highest
proportions due to Vehicle incident (49%) but lower proportions for most of the
other mechanisms of injury. For example, 1 worker was killed due to Contact
with electricity in New South Wales compared with 7 in Queensland and 6 in
Victoria.
16
Victoria recorded one of the lowest proportions of workers killed for Vehicle
incident (34%) but one of the highest for Being hit by moving objects (19% - with
12 of the 15 fatalities due to this cause involving a vehicle) and for Contact with
electricity (8%).
The pattern in Western Australia was the most dissimilar to the national pattern
with 60% due to Vehicle incident compared with 43% nationally and 9% for
Being hit by moving objects compared with 15% nationally. Western Australia
also had the highest proportion of workers killed by Being hit by falling objects
(14%) and the lowest for Trapped by machinery or equipment (6%).
Table 5: Worker fatalities: number by mechanism of incident and
state/territory of death, 2003–04 to 2010–11 combined
Mechanism of injury
NSW
Qld
Vic
WA
Vehicle incident
48
40
26
21
Being hit by moving objects
Trapped by machinery or
equipment
Being hit by falling objects
14
11
15
9
11
6
Falls
6
Hit or bitten by animal
Contact with electricity
SA
Tas
NT
Total
4
9
6
154
3
6
2
1
52
9
2
5
2
1
39
7
6
5
2
1
0
27
6
7
3
3
0
1
27
4
7
4
1
1
1
0
18
1
7
6
0
1
2
0
17
Number of fatalities
9
7
4
0
2
0
0
22
97
96
77
35
24
17
9
356
Other mechanisms
Total
Percentage of state/territory
Vehicle incident
49%
42%
34%
60%
17%
53%
67%
43%
Being hit by moving objects
14%
11%
19%
9%
25%
12%
np
15%
Trapped by machinery or
equipment
9%
11%
12%
6%
21%
12%
np
11%
Being hit by falling objects
6%
7%
8%
14%
8%
6%
0
8%
Falls
6%
6%
9%
9%
13%
0%
np
8%
Hit or bitten by animal
4%
7%
5%
3%
4%
6%
0
5%
Contact with electricity
1%
7%
8%
0%
4%
12%
0
5%
Other mechanisms
Total
9%
7%
5%
0%
8%
0%
0
6%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
17
Bystander fatalities on farms
Over the eight year period considered in this report, 41 non-working people were
killed on farms. Of these 35 were children under the age of 10. Figure 16 shows
that Drowning accounted for the highest number of the deaths. Of the 13 deaths
from drowning, 10 involved children who drowned in farm dams. The other
drownings were also children: 1 drowned in an irrigation channel, 1 in a creek
and 1 in a cattle dip.
Figure 16 Bystander fatalities involving farms: Number by age group,
2003–04 to 2010–11 combined
Drowning
Fall from vehicle
Hit by moving vehicle
Hit by falling object
Plane crash
Vehicle incident
Hit by animal
Caught in machinery
Fall from horse
0
3
6
9
Number of Bystander deaths
12
15
Vehicles were involved in half (22) of the incidents. There were 7 Bystanders
who died after falling from a vehicle (4 of which were tractors), 6 were hit by a
moving vehicle, 3 died in plane crashes and 3 died in other vehicle crashes.
Some of the fatalities include:
A two year old boy and his family were visiting friends on an orchard
with an unfenced dam near the house. The child has wandered off
and drowned in the dam.
A two year old boy was placed in the front bucket of a tractor while
the family was picking up rocks from the paddock. The child has
fallen or attempted to get out of the bucket and went under the tractor
with the rear left wheel going over the full length of his body causing
him to be crushed.
A one year old child and his mother were visiting his grandmother.
His mother took him in a stroller to a stable yard. His mother left him
in the stroller while she opened a gate to let three large ponies out of
a small holding yard into an open paddock. The child got out of the
stroller and walked into the holding yard behind his mother and was
knocked over by one of the ponies that then trod on him.
A father stopped his tractor and switched off the engine but left the
two children on board. A short time later the tractor was observed to
move forwards a short distance before stopping. It is believed that the
deceased child was standing on the running board of the tractor when
it commenced to move forward and she has come into contact with
the tyre causing her to be drawn under the wheel.
Queensland was the location for 14 of bystander fatalities. All of these bystander
fatalities were children, with 7 drowning and 6 either falling from a vehicle or
being hit by one. New South Wales and Victoria accounted for 8 deaths each.
18
Half of the fatalities in New South Wales involved vehicles while half of the
fatalities in Victoria involved drownings. Western Australia recorded 6 bystander
fatalities with 4 the result of incidents involving vehicles and 2 from drowning.
19
Work-related injuries
The Work-related Injury Survey (WRIS) produced by the ABS estimated that in
2009–10, 17 400 workers in the Agriculture sector had incurred a work-related
injury or illness in the previous 12 months. This amounts to over 47 injuries per
day in the Agriculture sector. While this estimate is affected by the ability of the
worker to recall their work-related injury and illnesses it equates to an incidence
rate of 56.4 injuries per 1000 workers. This rate of injuries was slightly lower than
the rate for workers in all industries (57.9). The survey also showed there was
little difference in the injury rates between employees (55.5) and self-employed
workers (57.2) working in the Agriculture sector.
The survey data showed that 65% of injured employees took no time off work
following their injury but also that 23% of those employees who required five or
more days off work following their work-related injury did not seek workers’
compensation.
The workers’ compensation claims data shows a fall in the number of claims in
the Agriculture sector in the last few years. The number of claims fell 21% from
5750 in 2008–09 to 4520 in 2009–10. The preliminary data for 2010–11 show
4155 claims which is still expected to be a fall on the previous year when all
claims are processed.
The following chapter presents an analysis of workers’ compensation data.
These data provide good information on how injuries are incurred in the
Agriculture sector but readers need to keep in mind that these data understate
the full extent of injuries in this sector because only half of the workers in this
sector are eligible for workers’ compensation and many of those who are eligible
did not put in a claim for their injury. Data in this chapter are presented for the
total of the three claim periods of 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11. This has
been done to reduce the volatility that can be present in small numbers. In
addition the data for 2010–11 while the latest available are preliminary and
expected to rise.
The workers’ compensation data include claims for injuries and illnesses incurred
at work but exclude claims for incidents involving a journey to or from work.
Worker’ compensation claims by sex
Over the three years 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11, three-quarters (77%) of
claims were lodged by male employees in the Agriculture sector. This is slightly
higher than the proportion of employees who were male (72%) and slightly lower
than the proportion of hours worked by male employees (80%). This higher
proportion of hours worked by males is an indication of the longer average hours
of work typical of this group with male Agriculture employees working 43 hours
per week on average compared with 28 for females.
Figure 17 shows that male employees in the Agriculture sector recorded an
incidence rate of injury over this three year period of 37.9 claims per 1000
employees, which was 29% higher than the incidence rate of injury for female
Agriculture employees. However, when hours are controlled, the lower average
hours of work by females resulted in a higher frequency rate of injury for female
Agriculture workers than male Agriculture workers. The rate for females of 20.4
injuries per million hours worked was 21% higher than the rate for males of 16.9.
20
Claims per million hours worked
Claims per 1000 employees
Figure 17: Agriculture sector workers’ compensation claims: incidence
and frequency rates by sex, 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11
c
o
25
40
m
b
20
i
30
n
15
e
20
d
10
10
5
0
0
Incidence rate
Female
29.3
Male
37.9
Frequency rate
Female
20.4
Male
16.9
Time lost from work
A typical claim from an employee in the Agriculture sector involved one and a
half weeks off work, which is three times the amount of time taken by all
employees. Table 6 shows that 40% of claims involved less than one week off
work. This is substantially lower than the proportion of claims for less than one
week off work made by employees in all industries (53%).
In contrast a greater proportion of Agriculture sector claims involved 1–5 weeks
off work than observed for all Australian employees (31% and 25% respectively).
When considered together these data show that the proportion of claims that
involved less than six weeks off work were similar for Agriculture employees and
all employees (71% for Agriculture and 78% for all employees).
Table 6: All workers’ compensation claims from employees: Percentage
by time off work, 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11 combined
Duration of absence
Agriculture
All industries
Up to one week
40%
53%
1 to 5 weeks
31%
25%
6 to 11 weeks
11%
7%
12 to 25 weeks
9%
5%
26 to 51 weeks
5%
3%
52 weeks and over
Total
4%
4%
100%
100%
Overall Agriculture employees have claims requiring longer periods off work than
for employees across all industries. This could mean that more serious injuries
occur on farms than generally across all industries or that Agriculture workers
only lodge claims for compensation when their injury is severe.
How injuries occurred
Table 7 shows how the employees who lodged a workers’ compensation claim
were injured at work and how long these workers required off work. One-quarter
of claims involved Body stressing which includes claims for injuries or disorders
as a result from stress placed on muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones. Many
of these injuries were due to handling or lifting objects. These claims were
spread fairly evenly across the duration of absence groups. Of the Body
stressing claims, 29% were due to handling non-powered tools and equipment,
21
15% from working with animals and 11% working with mobile plant and
transport.
Table 7: Agriculture sector workers’ compensation claims: number by
mechanism of incident and duration of absence, 2008–09, 2009–
10 and 2010-11 combined
Duration of absence
Less than 1
week
1–5 weeks
6 weeks or
more
Number of claims
Total
Body stressing
1 325
1 105
1 195
3 620
Being hit by moving objects other than an animal
1 240
780
575
2 595
Falls on the same level
545
505
500
1 550
Falls from a height
405
485
565
1 455
Being hit by an animal
565
410
390
1 360
Vehicle incident
255
260
475
995
Hitting moving objects
390
260
100
750
Hitting stationary objects
465
235
100
800
Chemicals and other substances
235
110
20
365
Heat, radiation and electricity
95
65
25
180
Sound and pressure
10
125
5
140
Biological factors
25
50
25
100
Mental stress
15
15
50
75
Mechanism of incident
Other and unspecified mechanisms of injury
Total
175
125
130
430
5 750
4 520
4 155
14 425
Percentage
Body stressing
37%
30%
33%
100%
Being hit by moving objects other than an animal
48%
30%
22%
100%
Falls not from height
35%
33%
32%
100%
Falls from a height
28%
33%
39%
100%
Being hit by an animal
41%
30%
29%
100%
Vehicle incident
26%
26%
48%
100%
Hitting moving objects
52%
34%
13%
100%
Hitting stationary objects
58%
29%
13%
100%
Chemicals and other substances
65%
30%
6%
100%
Heat, radiation and electricity
52%
35%
14%
100%
8%
88%
4%
100%
Biological factors
26%
50%
24%
100%
Mental stress
19%
17%
64%
100%
Other and unspecified mechanisms of injury
Total
41%
29%
31%
100%
40%
31%
29%
100%
Sound and pressure
Being hit by an animal accounted for 9% of claims however 41% of these claims
required less than one week off work. Being hit by moving objects other than an
animal accounted for 18% of claims. Nearly half of the claims (48%) for Being hit
by an animal involved less than one week off work, indicating that the injuries
caused by this mechanism are less severe than Body stressing injuries.
Falls accounted for 21% of claims. There were almost an equal number of claims
due to Falls from height as due to Falls on the same level. The injuries from Falls
from height resulted in slightly more severe injuries with 39% of injured
22
employees requiring 6 or more weeks off work compared with 32% for Falls on
the same level. The claims due to falls were mainly due to the ground surfaces
being hazardous (41%) and 18% were due to falls from mobile plant and
transport.
There were only slight differences in the profiles of claims requiring different
periods of time lost. Claims involving 6 or more weeks off work were a little more
likely to involve Body stressing than claims for absences of shorter duration. In
contrast claims resulting from Being hit by moving objects other than an animal
accounted for a greater proportion of the less than one week absence claims
than the other duration of absence groups.
Overall, 22% of claims were due to working with animals, 19% from working with
mobile plant and transport and 18% from working with non-powered tools and
equipment.
Table 8 shows the proportion of workers’ compensation claims by sex and
mechanism of incident. These data show that male and female employees
incurred injuries in similar ways. Body stressing was the main mechanism of
incident for both male and female employees with this mechanism accounting for
28% of claims from females and 24% of claims from males.
Males had a slightly higher proportion of claims due to Being hit by moving
objects other than an animal (19% for males compared with 14% for females),
while females recorded a higher proportion for Being hit by an animal (12% for
females and 9% for males).
The other notable difference is that 8% of claims from males were due to Vehicle
incident with females having half this proportion (4%).
Table 8: Agriculture sector workers’ compensation claims: number by
mechanism of incident and duration of absence, 2008–09, 2009–
10 and 2010–11 combined
Mechanism of incident
Female
Proportion of claims
Male
Total
Body stressing
28%
24%
25%
Being hit by moving objects other than an animal
14%
19%
18%
Falls not from height
13%
10%
11%
Falls from a height
11%
10%
10%
Being hit by an animal
12%
9%
9%
Vehicle incident
4%
8%
7%
Hitting moving objects
4%
6%
5%
Hitting stationary objects
5%
6%
6%
Chemicals and other substances
3%
2%
3%
Other mechanisms of injury
Total
7%
6%
6%
100%
100%
100%
Object or substance inflicting injury
The agency of injury or illness describes the object or substance that was the
direct cause of the most serious injury. Within this classification are nine broad
groups with four of them accounting for nearly two thirds of claims (73%) in the
Agriculture sector.
23
Table 9: Agriculture sector workers’ compensation claims: number by agency of injury or
illness, 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11 combined
Percentage
Agency of injury or illness
Number of
claims
Female
Male
Total
Environmental agencies
21%
19%
20%
2 815
Outdoor environment
17%
17%
17%
2 400
Vegetation
4%
3%
3%
495
Fencing
2%
3%
3%
360
Holes in the ground
1%
1%
1%
155
4%
2%
3%
405
25%
18%
19%
2 810
20%
15%
16%
2 310
12%
4%
6%
870
Cows, steers, cattle, bulls, buffalo
5%
6%
6%
820
Sheep
1%
3%
2%
330
Pigs
1%
2%
2%
230
18%
18%
18%
2 590
6%
6%
6%
805
Crates, cartons, boxes, cases, drums, kegs, barrels, cans
4%
2%
3%
370
Bags, bundles & bales
0%
1%
1%
105
Wire, wire rope, metal strapping
1%
1%
1%
110
3%
4%
4%
605
2%
3%
2%
345
2%
1%
2%
230
2%
1%
1%
200
10%
17%
16%
2 245
6%
9%
8%
1 225
Motorcycles & sidecars, scooters, trail bikes
3%
5%
5%
695
Trucks, semi-trailers, lorries
1%
2%
2%
260
Cars, station wagons, vans, utilities
1%
2%
2%
220
4%
5%
5%
705
Tractors, agricultural or otherwise
1%
3%
2%
340
Trolleys, handcarts
2%
1%
1%
160
Trailers, caravans
0%
1%
1%
110
Self-propelled plant
0%
1%
1%
175
Materials & substances
9%
11%
11%
1 520
Ferrous & non-ferrous metal
2%
3%
3%
390
Fragments
0%
1%
1%
135
Food
2%
0%
1%
125
Sawn or dressed timber
0%
1%
1%
100
Machinery & mainly fixed plant
4%
5%
5%
690
Sheep shearing plant
0%
1%
1%
95
Forklift trucks
0%
1%
1%
80
2%
3%
2%
345
Chemicals & chemical products
1%
1%
1%
215
Other and unspecified agencies
Total
10%
8%
8%
1 190
100%
100%
100%
14 425
Indoor environment
Animal, human & biological agencies
Live four-legged animals
Horses, donkeys, mules
Non-powered handtools, appliances & equipment
Fastening, packing & packaging equipment
Handtools, non-powered, edged
Knives & cutlery
Ladders, mobile ramps & stairways, & scaffolding
Ladders
Mobile plant & transport
Road transport
Other mobile plant
Powered equipment, tools &appliances
Note: Only the major sub-categories are shown so the sub-categories do not necessarily sum to the percentage
shown at the broad level.
24
Table 9 shows that 20% of claims were due to Environmental agencies, which
includes the physical environment in which the worker operates. Not
unexpectedly, the majority of these claims involved Outdoor environment with
the main items listed being Vegetation and Fencing each accounting for 3% of
claims.
A similar proportion of claims (19%) were due to Animal, human & biological
agencies with Horses, donkeys, mules accounting for slightly more claims than
Cows, steers, cattle, bulls, buffalo though both represented 6% of claims.
The third most common agency of injury was Non-powered handtools,
appliances & equipment accounting for 18% of claims. Within this agency group,
Fastening, packing & packaging equipment accounted for the greatest proportion
of claims (6% of all claims).
The fourth of the agency groups that is most relevant to claims in the Agriculture
sector was Mobile plant & transport accounting for 16% of claims. Motorcycles &
sidecars, scooters, trail bikes accounted for more than twice the claims (5%) due
to incidents involving Trucks, semi-trailers, lorries (2%) and Cars, station
wagons, vans, utilities (2%). While tractors were prominent with fatalities, they
accounted for just 2% of workers’ compensation claims.
The main difference between claims lodged by males and females were for
injuries due to Animal, human & biological agencies and particularly for claims
involving Horses, donkeys, mules where the proportion for females (12%) was
three times the proportion for males (4%). Males also had 17% of claims
attributed to Mobile plant & transport compared with 10% for females. Males
recorded higher proportions of injuries resulting from all types of transport and
plant than females.
Part of the body most affected
Table 10 shows that the body part most affected by a work-related injury was
Hands, fingers & thumbs which accounted for 17% of all workers’ compensation
claims made by Agriculture employees. This was closely followed by injuries to
the Back which accounted for 15% of claims.
The pattern of claims for males and females were remarkably similar. Injuries to
Upper limb accounted for 39% of claims from female Agriculture workers and
36% for males. Within this category females had a greater proportion of claims
that involved the Wrist (7% for females and 4% for males) while males had a
greater proportion that involved Hands, fingers & thumbs (17% for males and
15% for females).
25
Table 10: Agriculture sector workers’ compensation claims: number by
bodily location of injury or illness by sex, 2008–09, 2009–10 and
2010–11 combined
Percentage of claims
Bodily location
Female
Male
Total
39%
36%
37%
15%
17%
17%
Shoulder
8%
8%
8%
Wrist
7%
4%
5%
Forearm
3%
3%
3%
Lower limbs
24%
26%
25%
Knee
9%
9%
9%
Ankle
6%
5%
6%
Foot & toes
4%
4%
4%
Lower leg
2%
4%
3%
19%
21%
21%
Back
15%
15%
15%
Chest
2%
3%
3%
9%
10%
10%
2%
4%
4%
2%
1%
1%
Upper limbs
Hand, fingers & thumb
Trunk
Head
Eye
Neck
Other & unspecified locations
Total
8%
6%
6%
100%
100%
100%
Note: Only the major sub-categories are shown so the sub-categories do not necessarily sum to the
percentage shown at the broad level.
Workers’ compensation claims by sector
Over the three years 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11, 14 400 claims for
workers’ compensation were accepted from employees working in the
Agriculture sector. This number of claims equates to an incidence rate of 35.5
claims per 1000 employees which is 27% higher than the rate for all industries
(27.9). This means the workers’ compensation data show employees in the
Agriculture sector have a much higher injury rate than employees nationally.
This is different to the ABS WRIS data which show similar injury rates between
Agriculture workers and all workers. The survey data is not robust enough to
determine if Agriculture employees have a higher propensity to claim workers’
compensation than other workers. It could also be that while the survey
estimates are within acceptable standard error bands the true results could still
lie up to 25% of either side of the rates shown at the beginning of this chapter.
Table 11 shows that over the three years from 2008–09 to 2010–11, 70% of
claims were lodged by employees in two sectors: Grain, sheep and beef cattle
farming3 and Horticulture and fruit growing. These sectors accounted for 75% of
Agriculture employees in this period. This resulted in these two sectors recording
incidence rates slightly below the rate for the whole of the Agriculture sector.
The workers’ compensation data are compiled using the 1993 version of the Australian and New Zealand Standard
Industrial Classification whereas the other data in this report are compiled using the 2006 version.
3
26
Table 11: Agriculture sector workers’ compensation claims: proportion
and incidence rate by sector and year
Industry sector
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11p
Total
Number of claims
Grain, sheep and beef cattle farming
33%
36%
37%
35%
Horticulture and fruit growing
37%
34%
35%
35%
Other livestock farming
11%
12%
11%
12%
Dairy cattle farming
6%
6%
6%
6%
Other crop growing
7%
6%
6%
6%
Poultry farming
Total Agriculture
5%
5%
6%
5%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Incidence rate (claims per 1000
employees)
Grain, sheep and beef cattle farming
33.9
33.3
36.6
34.6
39.0
28.9
30.4
32.6
118.3
99.8
91.7
102.5
Dairy cattle farming
39.3
30.7
31.2
33.6
Other crop growing
50.2
38.9
36.0
41.6
Poultry farming
28.3
18.1
16.5
20.0
Total Agriculture
39.9
33.0
33.9
35.5
Horticulture and fruit growing
Other livestock farming
It should be noted that the workers’ compensation data are compiled using an
older version of the industry classification. Therefore the names in Table 10 are
different to those shown in the first two chapters of this report.
In Table 11 the sector called Grain, sheep and beef cattle farming comprises the
same workers as the sector called Sheep, beef cattle and grain farming used in
the first two chapters of this report. The Horticulture and fruit growing sector used
in the table below has been split in the new industry classification into Nursery &
floriculture production, Mushroom & vegetable growing and Fruit & tree nut
growing.
Within the Agriculture sector the highest incidence rate of injury (102.5 claims
per 1000 employees) was recorded by Other livestock farming. This rate was
nearly three times the rate for the whole of the Agriculture sector. The Other
livestock farming sector accounted for 4% of Agriculture employees and includes
the farming of animals such as pigs, horses, dogs, cats and goats. The Poultry
farming sector recorded the lowest incidence rate of 20 claims per 1000
employees.
Workers’ compensation claims by age group
Figure 18 shows that the incidence rates of worker’ compensation generally fell
with increasing employee age. Employees aged under 25 years recorded 52.0
claims per 1000 employees which was four times the rate for employees aged 65
years and over (13.2). However, as was seen in Figure 2 nearly all workers in
the 65 years and over age group were self-employed and hence not eligible for
workers’ compensation. Those that were employees at this age were more likely
to be managers and working in a safer environment. Therefore it is possible that
the workers’ compensation data underestimates the rates of injury in the 65
years and over age group.
27
Claims per 1000 employees
Figure 18: Agriculture sector workers’ compensation claims: Incidence
rates by age group, 2008–09, 2009–10 and 2010–11 combined
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Incidence rate
Under 25
52.0
25-34
41.0
35-44
32.1
45-54
33.0
55-64
27.5
65+
13.2
Age group (years)
Serious claims by state/territory
A limitation of the national dataset of workers’ compensation claims is that it may
not contain reliable information on claims that were fully paid for by the employer.
Therefore only data on serious claims are usually published. Serious claims are
those that involved a fatality, a permanent incapacity or a temporary incapacity of
one or more weeks. The data on serious claims are of better quality because for
the most part this duration of time lost is beyond the excess period of the
compensation schemes in each jurisdiction.
Figure 19 shows that the Northern Territory recorded the highest incidence rate
of serious claims by employees in the Agriculture industry with 63.6 serious
claims per 1000 employees. This was nearly double the rate of the next highest
state (Queensland with 33.5) and five times the lowest rate (Victoria with 12.4).
While the Northern Territory accounted for just 1% of employees, it accounted for
4% of serious claims. New South Wales and Queensland accounted for 30% of
serious claims each but because Queensland has fewer employees in the
Agriculture sector it has a higher incidence rate.
Serious claims per 1000 employees
Figure 19: Agriculture sector serious workers’ compensation claims:
Incidence rates by state/territory, 2008–09, 2009–10 and
2010–11 combined
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Incidence rate
NT
63.6
Qld
33.5
NSW
25.4
TAS
20.9
WA
18.1
Workers' compensation jurisdiction
28
SA
13.9
Vic
12.4
Hospitalisations due to work-related injury
The Australian Institute of Health & Welfare (AIHW) maintains a database of
hospitalisations from which cases that involved work-related activity can be
extracted. This database shows that over the three-year period from July 2006 to
June 2009 approximately 73 400 hospitalisations occurred across Australia
where the patient was aged 15 years or over and their activity when injured was
reported as ‘working for income’. However, because of the large number of
hospitalisations for injury where activity when injured was recorded as
‘Unspecified activity’, the true number of work-related hospitalisations is likely to
be higher than this figure.
Of the 73 400 hospitalisations, 4400 (6%) had the place of occurrence of the
incident reported as a farm. This is twice the proportion the Agriculture sector
represents of the national workforce (3%) though it should be mentioned that a
worker may have been hospitalised more than once in the three-year period.
The number of farm hospitalisations should also be considered as understated
since for 45% of the work-related injury hospitalisations the place of occurrence
was not reported. This chapter provides a profile of the hospital admissions
where the activity at the time of the injury was reported as ‘working for income’
and the place of occurrence was reported as a farm. These will be referred to as
farm hospitalisations in this report.
Causes of hospitalisation
Table 11 shows the broad causes of injury that resulted in a hospitalisation of a
farm worker and the more common detailed underlying categories. At the broad
level 38% of farm hospitalisations were the result of Exposure to inanimate
mechanical forces: a category covering a wide variety of causes, the most
common of which were Contact with agricultural machinery and Caught,
crushed, jammed or pinched in or between objects (9% and 6% of farm
hospitalisations respectively).
Transport accidents accounted for one-quarter of farm hospitalisations and was
the second most common broad cause of injury. At a more detailed level the
table shows 9% of farm hospitalisations involved a Motorcycle rider.
A hazard particular to farms is the handling of livestock. Episodes related to the
handling livestock are recorded under the category Exposure to animate
mechanical forces. Over the period July 2006 to June 2009 this cause of injury
was responsible for 16% of farm hospitalisations. The most common underlying
category was being Bitten or struck by cattle: reported in for 9% of farm
hospitalisations.
Males accounted for most of the hospitalisations (85%) for a work-related injury
that occurred on a farm. Comparison of the hospitalisation proportions by sex at
the broad level of cause of injury shows that a larger proportion of
hospitalisations for females than males were due to Exposure to animate
mechanical forces (21% and 15% respectively), Transport accidents (29% and
24%) and Falls (13% and 8%). The underlying transport categories highlight that
13% of the farm hospitalisations for females involved Animal-rider or occupant of
animal-drawn vehicle. In nearly all cases this involved falling from a horse.
29
Table 11 Farm work-related hospitalisations July 2006 to June 2009:
percentage by cause of injury and sex
Cause of injury
Males
Females
Total
40%
25%
38%
10%
4%
9%
7%
6%
6%
4%
4%
4%
Contact with knife, sword or dagger
4%
2%
4%
Contact with other specified machinery
4%
1%
3%
Striking against or struck by other objects
3%
2%
2%
Contact with non-powered hand tool
2%
1%
2%
Foreign body or object entering through skin
2%
2%
2%
Transport accidents
24%
29%
25%
Motorcycle rider
9%
7%
9%
Animal-rider or occupant of animal-drawn vehicle
5%
13%
6%
4%
3%
4%
3%
3%
3%
15%
21%
16%
Bitten or struck by cattle
9%
10%
9%
Bitten or struck by horse
2%
6%
2%
Bitten or struck by sheep
1%
2%
1%
8%
13%
9%
Fall on same level from slipping, tripping & stumbling
2%
4%
2%
Other fall from one level to another
1%
1%
1%
Fall on & from ladder
1%
2%
1%
Overexertion, travel & privation
3%
3%
3%
Contact with venomous animals & plants
2%
1%
2%
Accidental poisoning by & exposure to noxious substances
2%
1%
2%
Other causes of injury
Total
6%
6%
6%
100%
100%
100%
Total number of hospitalisations
3 780
650
4 420
Exposure to inanimate mechanical forces
Contact with agricultural machinery
Caught, crushed, jammed or pinched in or between other
objects
Struck by thrown, projected or falling object
Occupant of special vehicle mainly used in agriculture
Occupant of special all-terrain or other motor vehicle designed
primarily for off-road use
Exposure to animate mechanical forces
Falls
Note: Only the major sub-categories are shown so the sub-categories do not necessarily sum to the percentage shown at the broad level.
Figure 20 shows the most common detailed causes of injury among farm
workers hospitalised for a work-related injury by sex. These causes of injury
together accounted for 54% of farm work-related hospitalisations for males and
55% for females.
For male farm workers the most commonly specified cause of hospitalisation
was Contact with agricultural machinery (10% of hospitalisations by males). This
was followed by Motorcycle transport accident (9%) and Bitten or struck by cattle
(9%).
A considerably different pattern was seen in the farm hospitalisations of females
with the most common causes being Horse-related traffic incident (13%) followed
by Bitten or struck by cattle (10%) and Bitten or struck by horse (6%).
There were some similarities in the proportions by sex for the cause for
hospitalisation. Male and female farm workers reported similar proportions for
Caught, crushed, jammed or pinched by object, Bitten or struck by cattle and
Struck by thrown, projected or falling object.
30
Figure 20 Farm work-related hospitalisations June 2006 to July 2009:
percentage by the most common specified causes of injury* by
sex
Contact with agricultural machinery
Motorcycle transport accident
Bitten or struck by cattle
Caught, crushed, jammed or pinched by object
Horse-related traffic incident
Struck by thrown, projected or falling object
Contact with knife, sword or dagger
Male
Female
Special agriculture vehicle incident
Bitten or struck by horse
Fall on same level
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Percentage of hospitalisations
10%
12%
* Cause of injury names have been simplified for ease of understanding in this graph
Age profile of hospitalised workers
Figure 21 shows the age profile for farm hospitalisations compared with workrelated hospitalisations across all locations. These data show that farm
hospitalisations had lower proportions in the younger age groups up to 55 years.
After this age, farm hospitalisations recorded higher proportions, particularly for
the 65 years & over age group which accounted for 12% of hospitalisations
compared with just 3% for hospitalisations from all locations. This is linked to the
much older age profile of farm workers.
Proportion of hospitalisations
Figure 21 Work-related hospitalisations June 2006 to July 2009:
percentage by place of occurrence and age
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Farms
All locations
15–24
20%
25–34
17%
35–44
18%
45–54
18%
55–64
16%
65+
12%
20%
22%
22%
20%
12%
3%
Age group (years)
Table 12 shows that among the most common causes of injury there are some
distinct age-related patterns. Of the farm workers who were hospitalised, young
workers recorded higher proportions for a motorbike or horse-related incident or
from coming into contact with a sharp object such as a knife. In contrast, older
workers had a higher proportion from being bitten or struck by cattle.
31
14%
Table 12 Farm work-related hospitalisations July 2006 to June 2009:
percentage by most common causes of injury and age group
Age group (years)
Cause of injury
15–24
Contact with agricultural machinery
Transport accidents - motorcycle rider
Bitten or struck by cattle
Caught, crushed, jammed or pinched in or
between other objects
Animal-rider or occupant of animal-drawn
vehicle
Struck by thrown, projected or falling object
Contact with knife, sword or dagger
Transport accidents - Occupant of special
vehicle mainly used in agriculture
35–44
45–54
55–64
6%
25–34
8%
11%
10%
11%
65+
14%
12%
8%
8%
5%
5%
8%
6%
8%
10%
10%
16%
6%
5%
8%
7%
7%
6%
12%
6%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
4%
4%
6%
4%
5%
6%
7%
3%
4%
2%
1%
3%
4%
3%
2%
5%
6%
9%
Type of injury resulting in hospitalisation
Figure 22 shows the principal injury that resulted in hospitalisation. One-third
(33%) of farm hospitalisations principally involved a Fracture. This was slightly
higher than the proportion Fracture represent of all work-related hospitalisations
(27%). These data also show that the proportion of farm hospitalisations for
Open wound (18%) was similar to all Australian workers but farm workers had
half the proportion of hospitalisations due to injuries to Muscle & tendons (6%)
compared with 12% for Australian workers overall.
These data also indicate that farm workers had more hospitalisations for
Superficial and Intracranial injuries than workers nationally though the
percentages were small.
Figure 22 Work-related hospitalisations June 2006 to July 2009:
percentage by place of occurrence and type of injury
Fracture
Open wound
Muscle & tendon
Superficial
Intracranial
Amputation
Dislocation
Poison, toxic effect & bite
Sprain & strain
Farms
Internal organ
All places
Burn & corrosion
Eye injury
Nerve & spinal cord
Other injury
0%
10%
20%
30%
Percentage of hospitalisations
Table 13 shows that age had little impact on the type of injury that required
hospitalisation. However, an exception to this is Fracture for which the
proportions increased with age from 28% of farm hospitalisation in the 15–24
years age group to 37% of those in the 65 years and over age group.
32
Table 13 Farm work-related hospitalisations July 2006 to June 2009:
percentage by type of injury and age group
Age group (years)
Type of injury
15–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
Fracture
28%
32%
32%
32%
39%
37%
Open wound
19%
18%
19%
19%
15%
20%
Muscle & tendon
5%
6%
5%
7%
8%
6%
Superficial
8%
6%
4%
5%
5%
6%
Intracranial
7%
5%
2%
3%
4%
5%
Amputation
3%
4%
6%
4%
6%
4%
Dislocation
3%
5%
5%
4%
4%
3%
Poison, toxic effect & bite
3%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Sprain & strain
2%
3%
2%
3%
2%
3%
Other injury
Total
65+
22%
19%
20%
19%
15%
13%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bodily location of injury that resulted in hospitalisation
Figure 23 shows that in the farm hospitalisations, the part of the body most
commonly injured was Wrist & hand (24%). This proportion was substantially
lower than the 38% of hospitalisations for work-related Wrist & hand injuries
nationally.
The next most common bodily location of injury was the Knee & lower leg (16%)
followed by injuries to the Trunk (14%) and Head (13%). These proportions for
farm hospitalisations were all higher than the proportions for all Australian
workers.
There was little difference between the proportions for farm hospitalisations
compared with all Australian workers in the other bodily locations.
Figure 23 Farm work-related hospitalisations June 2006 to July 2009:
percentage by bodily locations of injury
Wrist & hand
Knee & lower leg
Trunk
Head
Elbow & forearm
Shoulder & arms
Hip & thigh
Farm
Ankle & foot
All places
Neck
Other injury
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percentage of hospitalisations
The data on bodily location by age shows similar patterns across the age groups.
An exception is the 65 years & over age group which had a lower proportion of
hospitalisations due to Wrist & hand (17% compared with 24% to 29% for the
other age groups) but a much higher proportion of hospitalisations due to Hip &
thigh (10% compared with 3% to 4% for the other age groups).
33
Table 14 shows that the youngest age group (15–24 years) recorded a slightly
higher proportion of hospitalisations for injuries to the Head (16%) compared with
the other age groups (11% to 13%).
Table 14 Farm work-related hospitalisations July 2006 to June 2009:
percentage by bodily location of injury and age group
Age group (years)
Type of injury
15–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
Wrist & hand
24%
26%
29%
24%
25%
17%
Knee & lower leg
15%
16%
16%
17%
15%
17%
Trunk
11%
11%
14%
17%
17%
15%
Head
16%
12%
11%
13%
11%
12%
Elbow & forearm
7%
9%
7%
7%
8%
7%
Shoulder & arms
5%
6%
6%
6%
7%
8%
Hip & thigh
4%
3%
3%
3%
4%
10%
Ankle & foot
5%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Neck
Other injury
Total
65+
3%
3%
2%
1%
2%
4%
10%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
34
The way forward
The Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012–22 (Australian Strategy)
includes a specific focus on the Agriculture sector in order to reduce the
unacceptably high number of injuries and deaths that occur on farms. Each state
and territory health and safety authority is developing programs to assist farmers
improve safety on their farms.
The design of farm equipment is currently in the spotlight. While all new tractors
must be sold with roll over protection structures (ROPS), there are still too many
tractors without ROPS on farms. As shown in this report many older farmers are
killed in tractor rollovers that could have been avoided with the addition of ROPS
on their tractors.
Another safety feature for tractors is the Safe Tractor Access Platform. These
are relatively cheap and easy to install and could prevent many of the ‘run-over’
injuries and fatalities.
Deaths and injuries from quad bike use on farms is also a very important issue.
The Australian Government has established QuadWatch which brings together
industry, manufacturers, quad bike users and government to improve quad bike
safety. Following the release of a discussion paper and a number of forums
some quad bike manufacturers are now playing a positive role in offering to fit
crush protection devices as a safety feature. Safe Work Australia will work with
state and territory regulators to institute a ban on children under 16 years
operating a quad bike of full size in a workplace.
The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations also announced a quad
bike lifetime product stewardship program to be managed by Safe Work
Australia and the University of Sydney’s Australian Centre for Agricultural Health
and Safety. This initiative will allow new buyers of quad bikes to register their
machine within this program for the life of the machine and to report any
incidents. It is envisaged that this program will provide a way to track incidents
into the future through the collection of data on all quad bike incidents, near
misses, serious injuries and fatalities.
Farmers are busy people who face enormous pressures and uncertainties and
improving health and safety on a farm can be viewed as an additional burden
and cost. There is strong evidence that costs are reduced when health and
safety risks are considered along with other business risks. Advice and
assistance to farmers needs to be practical and delivered locally by people who
are respected by farmers.
The Beyond Common Sense4 report provided advice on how to provide relevant
work health and safety information to farmers and farm workers. The
suggestions were:

Farmers will be most engaged when the information imparted is of
immediate and practical benefit to them.
4
Beyond Common Sense - A report on the barriers to adoption of safety in the agriculture industry, Australian Safety
and Compensation Council, 2006,
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/about/publications/pages/acrr2006beyondcommonsensereport
35



Farmers are most likely to become involved when the training/information
is provided in places where they are already gathered, for example, at
field days, sale yards or local meetings.
When teaching farmers about legislative change, many farmers indicated
that they would prefer the balance of the training to concentrate on
teaching the practical skills that the legislation requires rather than on the
rationale for the legislation.
Farmers prefer to be taught by other farmers who are experts in health
and safety rather than by generic health and safety experts
Farm deaths and injuries have a huge impact on farmers and agricultural
workers and their families. For many farmers a serious injury to themselves or an
injury or death to one of their workers is likely to result in huge personal and
financial costs and sometimes the loss of their farm. And yet so many of the
incidents that result in serious injury or death could have been avoided by a little
planning and forethought, a little extra cost and time to make the work safer.
Under the Australian Strategy we will foster relationships between regulators,
manufacturers, designers, suppliers, farmers and farming associations to find
practical and cost effective solutions to some of the hazards farmers and their
employees face on a daily basis.
36
Explanatory Notes
Workers’ compensation claims
Scope and coverage
The workers’ compensation claims statistics presented in this publication are
compiled annually from accepted claims made under the state, territory and
Australian Government workers’ compensation Acts, that form part of the
National Data Set for Workers’ Compensation Statistics (NDS). The data shown
for a particular financial year refer to all accepted claims for which payments
were made (apart from payments for goods and services like medical treatment)
lodged from 1 July to 30 June.
The claims statistics in this report do not cover all cases of work injuries and
diseases for the following reasons:



Claims arising from a journey to or from work are excluded.
While general state, territory and Australian Government workers’
compensation legislation provides coverage for the majority of
employees, some specific groups of workers are covered under separate
legislation. Claims lodged by police in Western Australia and military
personnel of the Australian Defence Forces (ADF) are not included in the
claims data.
Workers’ compensation schemes do not generally provide coverage to
self-employed workers, resulting in an understatement of the number of
work-related injuries and diseases of workers employed in industries
where self-employed workers are common. These industries include
Agriculture, forestry & fishing, Construction, and Road transport. Large
proportions of Managers & administrators and Tradespersons & related
workers are also self-employed. Estimates of jobs and hours used as
denominators in calculating incidence and frequency rates include only
those worked by employees eligible for workers’ compensation.
Type of occurrence data
Details of the ‘description of the occurrence’ reported on the workers’
compensation claim have been coded using the Type of Occurrence
Classification System, Second Edition, (May 2002) (TOOCS2.1). Throughout this
publication TOOCS categories appear in italics.
The five variables used to describe the type of occurrence are:
Nature of Injury or Disease.
Bodily Location of Injury or Disease.
Mechanism of Injury or Disease.
Breakdown Agency of Injury or Disease.
Agency of Injury and Disease.
See the Glossary for the definitions of these variables.
Denominator data used to calculate incidence and frequency
rates
Estimates of the number of employees and hours worked for each Australian
workers’ compensation jurisdiction are supplied annually by the ABS. The ABS
37
provides two sets of estimates for each jurisdiction: one split by sex, age and
industry and the second by occupation. This restricts presentation of incidence
and frequency rates to the categories that ABS data support i.e. it is not possible
to calculate rates by occupation within an industry.
The denominator data are derived principally from the LFS, adjusted to account
for differences in scope between the LFS and workers’ compensation coverage.
The largest adjustment is for workers who have more than one job. Because a
person holding two or more jobs (a multiple jobholder) may lodge a workers’
compensation claim with respect to an illness or injury incurred in any of those
jobs, a count of jobs is a more appropriate denominator than a count of persons
in calculating incidence rates. The multiple jobholder adjustment adds around
5% to the number of employees in the LFS. Other adjustments aim to ensure
correct industry of employer coding for employees working under labour hire
arrangements.
While the ABS is able to adjust the employee estimates to account for the
industries where the second job was worked it is unable to adjust the hours
worked in a similar manner. All hours worked have been allocated to the industry
of the main job.
Differences in movements between incidence and frequency rates occur
because of differences in the two measures. The employee estimate is a head
count of all employees who were employed during the reference period. This
measure does not take into account the proportion who were not at work and
therefore not at risk on any given day. The frequency rate however is a measure
of exposure per actual hour of work. This measure also reflects that many
workers work on a part-time basis.
More information on workers’ compensation claims and classifications can be
found at on the Safe Work Australia website.
Traumatic injury fatalities
The traumatic injury fatalities statistics in this report are compiled from workers’
compensation claims, information on fatalities that are notified to work health and
safety authorities in each jurisdiction under their work health and safety
legislation and data from the National Coronial Information System (NCIS). In
addition the media and accident investigation reports from the Australian
Transport Safety Bureau relating to plane crashes, train crashes and maritime
incidents are used to supplement information found in each of the datasets. Data
on fatalities are published annually in the Work-related Traumatic Injury
Fatalities, Australia reports that can be found on the Safe Work Australia
website.
Inclusions
The data on traumatic injury fatalities covers fatalities due to work-related injuries
and explicitly excludes deaths attributable to disease and other natural causes.
Among conditions specifically included as injuries are those arising from
poisonous plants and animals, environmental conditions (e.g. frostbite), allergic
reactions and embolisms. Heart attacks and strokes are regarded as natural
causes but where available information shows that a work-related injury directly
triggers a fatal heart attack or stroke the fatality is included.
Exclusions
Deaths due to natural causes which includes deaths from heart attacks, strokes
and diseases.
38
Deaths due to complications of surgical and medical care. Although the death of
patients who die as a result of medical negligence or malpractice are in principle
Bystander fatalities, deaths arising from such iatrogenic injuries are specifically
excluded from this collection.
Suicide
The scope of this project excludes deaths resulting from self-harm because it is
difficult to assess the extent of the connection between work and a decision to
take one’s own life, even when detailed information is available.
Deaths of persons undertaking criminal activity
Work-related injury fatalities exclude deaths of persons fatally injured while
undertaking criminal activities, such as gaining illegal entry into a building or
work site.
Calculation of fatality rates
Fatality rates are calculated as the number of deaths divided by the number of
workers in the reference period from the LFS. Because work-related injury
fatalities of the ADF within Australia are in scope of this report, worker estimates
are supplemented with the average of levels of ADF permanent members’
reported in the Department of Defence Annual Report.
Type of occurrence data
Details of the ‘description of the occurrence’ for fatalities have been recorded
using the Type of Occurrence Classification System, Third Edition, May 2008
(TOOCS3.1). Throughout this publication, TOOCS categories appear in italics.
The variables used to describe the type of occurrence are:
Mechanism of Injury or Disease.
Breakdown Agency of Injury or Disease.
Agency of Injury and Disease.
See the Glossary for the definitions of these variables.
Hospitalisations
The data on hospital separations used in this report were provided by the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), from the National Hospital
Morbidity Database (NHMD).
The formal term for a hospitalisation is a ‘Separation’, defined by the AIHW as a
“formal, or statistical process, by which an episode of care for an admitted
patient ceases”. This is usually a discharge home, but is sometimes a transfer to
another health care facility or death. This report studied separations that
occurred during the three year period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2009.
Since some patients may have had more than one episode of hospitalisation
over the period, the count of hospitalisations is not a count of individuals.
Hospitalisation data in this report is based on the “Principal diagnosis” which is
the diagnosis established after study to be chiefly responsible for occasioning an
episode of admitted patient care.
This hospital separations information in this report includes data from all
hospitals that contributed to the NHMD during the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June
39
2009. This includes nearly all public and private hospitals in Australia that
provide acute care services.
This report examines the circumstances of workers who sustained an injury that
required a stay in hospital. As such they can be considered a “serious injury”
subset of workers who were injured since the injury required a stay in hospital.
However, it is important to bear in mind that there may be a larger group of
injured workers who received medical attention from a general practice clinic or a
hospital casualty ward whose injuries are not recorded in these statistics.
The prime selection criterion for the inclusion of a hospital separation in this
report was the recording of the activity at the time of injury as While working for
income (ICD-10-AM code U73.0): defined as including paid work (manual or
professional), transportation time to and from such activities, and work for salary,
bonus and other types of income. Records were then further restricted to those
for Injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes (S00T98).
The population group of separations was then further refined by excluding:


patients aged under 15 years
separations where the patient was discharged to another acute hospital,
and
separations where the injury was due to complications of surgical or
medical care.
Diagnoses and external causes of injury for hospitalisations were recorded using
the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related health
Problems, Tenth Revision, Australian Modification (ICD–10–AM). This system
comprises classifications of diseases and external causes of injuries and
poisoning, based on the World Health Organization’s version of ICD-10. The
ICD-10-AM classification is hierarchical, with 20 summary disease chapters that
are divided into a large number of more specific disease groupings (represented
by 3-character codes).
The main Data items used in this report are External causes of morbidity and
mortality (U50–Y98). These codes allow identification of



work-related injuries and in some cases the specific industry in which the
patient was working when injured
the cause of the injury the patient sustained, such as a fall or a traffic
incident, and
the place of occurrence of the injury (where specified).
The Type of injury and Bodily location categories used in this report are based
on aggregation of various Injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of
external causes (S00-T98) codes into simplified groups. These recodes are
listed in detail in a previous hospital separations report (ASCC, 2007) available
on the Safe Work Australia website.
40
Glossary
Workers’ compensation claims definitions
The workers’ compensation data presented in this report include all workers’
compensation claims lodged for a work-related injury or disease that were
accepted for and received compensation, with the exception of claims for injuries
occurring to or from work (journey claims).
Age
The age of the employee at the time of injury or the date when the disease was
first reported to their employer.
Breakdown agency of injury or disease
The object, substance or circumstance principally involved in or most closely
associated with the events that culminated in the most serious injury or disease.
Disease
A condition resulting from repeated or long term exposure to an agent or event.
Employee
A person who works for a public or private employer and receives remuneration
in wages, salary, a retainer fee from their employer while working on a
commission basis, tips, piece-rates, or payment in kind; or a person who
operates his or her own incorporated enterprise with or without hiring employees.
Frequency rate
The number of serious claims per million hours worked by employees.
Frequency rates are calculated using the following formula:
number of serious occupational injury and disease claims x 1 000 000
number of hours worked by employees
Incidence rate
The number of serious claims per thousand employees. Incidence rates are
calculated using the following formula:
number of serious occupational injury and disease claims x 1000
number of employees
Industry
The industry shown in the claims section is the industry of the establishment that
formally employs the claimant, classified to the Australian and New Zealand
Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC), 1993 edition (ABS Cat. No. 1292.0).
As we are measuring industry of employer, a claim made by a person employed
under labour hire arrangements is coded to the Contract staff services industry
class (ANZSIC code 7862) which is part of the Property & business services
industry division. Industry of employer will be different to Industry of workplace
for a range of workers.
Injury
A condition resulting from a single traumatic event where the harm or hurt is
immediately apparent for example a cut resulting from an accident with a knife or
burns resulting from an acid splash.
41
Location of injury or disease
The bodily location of Injury/ disease is intended to identify the part of the body
affected by the most serious injury or disease.
Mechanism of injury or disease
The action, exposure or event which directly caused the most serious injury or
disease incurred by the employee.
Nature of injury or disease
The type of injury or disease for the most serious injury or disease sustained or
suffered by the worker.
Occupation
The occupation of the employee making the claim as coded to the Australian
Standard Classification of Occupations 2nd Edition.
Time lost
Time lost figures shown in this publication are measured in working weeks lost
from work and exclude estimates of future absences. Time lost from work
comprises the total period of time for which compensation was paid — the time
lost is not necessarily continuous and may occur over a number of separate
periods. Where an employee returns to work on a part-time basis they may
continue to receive pro-rata payments and the total number of hours for which
compensation has been paid is included in calculating time lost.
Working week
The number of working weeks lost is calculated by dividing the amount of time
lost by the hours usually worked per week by the employee. Claims requiring
one working week or more of time off count as serious.
Traumatic injury fatalities definitions
Bystander fatality
The death of a person who dies from injuries sustained as a result of another
person’s work activity and who was not engaged in a work activity of their own or
traveling to or from their own workplace at the time of the injury.
A traffic incident death is only classified as a Bystander fatality when attributable
to someone else’s work activity. Typically this means the driver of a work vehicle
is at fault. Cases where fault could not be determined with sufficient confidence
are excluded.
Employed
The denominators used in calculating fatality rates in this report are based on
ABS estimates of Employed persons, as defined in Labour force, Australia (ABS
cat no 6202.0). This population includes Employees, who work for an employer;
self-employed persons, whether they employ others or not; and those who work
without pay for a family business or farm. It excludes persons whose only work
is voluntary.
Industry
A grouping of businesses that carry out similar economic activities. Fatalities
data in this publication have been coded to the Australian and New Zealand
Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) 2006 (ABS cat. no. 1292.0) and
unless specified are shown at the industry division level.
42
Injury
A condition coded to ‘External Causes of morbidity and mortality’ and ‘Injury,
poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes’ in the
International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems,
Tenth Revision, Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM).
Mechanism of incident
The action, exposure or event which best describes the circumstances that
resulted in the most serious injury.
Occupation
A set of jobs with similar sets of tasks. Fatalities data in this publication have
been coded to the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of
Occupations (ANZSCO) (ABS cat. no. 1220.0) First edition and unless specified
are shown at the major group level.
Mechanism of injury or disease
The action, exposure or event which directly caused the most serious injury or
disease incurred by the employee.
Nature of injury or disease
The type of injury or disease for the most serious injury or disease sustained or
suffered by the worker. This classification is based on an aggregated version of
the International Classification of Diseases (tenth revision) - Australian
Modification (ICD-10-AM).
Worker fatality
The death of a person who dies as a result of injuries sustained while at work,
including those whose injury results from another’s work activity.
43